Law & Disorder —

File-hosting site up in arms over Firefox plug-in

The file-hosting site MediaFire has asked Mozilla to remove its link to a …

Internet users and online advertising have always had a complex relationship. The ads pay for the content and services that many users find essential, but on many sites, advertisements have become increasingly intrusive and processor-intensive. That's led to the development of software, like ClickToFlash, that limits the intrusiveness. One of the latest incidents in the ongoing battle over advertising involves file-hosting sites, which support the service by showing ads to users as they download files. One of these sites, MediaFire, is bothered by a Firefox plugin called SkipScreen which automates the user straight past the ads. Instead of going after the software's developers, however, they've apparently targeted Mozilla, which hosts a link to the plugin.

File hosting sites provide a useful service for anyone who doesn't have the wherewithal, either technological or financial, to host large files. Files can be uploaded simply via a browser to free accounts, and then links to the download shared with anyone—it's a bit like a media-agnostic YouTube.

These sites obviously don't make money from the free accounts. Instead, they try to convince users to upgrade to premium services (more storage space, no file size limits, etc.), and by showing ads to anyone who does any downloading. Depending on the service, those ads can require several click-throughs before the bits actually start to flow. Another gimmick is forcing users to wait as long as two minutes to begin the download. So, it's no real surprise that enterprising coders decided to smooth over the process. SkipScreen is programmed to recognize data within the HTML of many popular services, and use that to get straight through to the underlying file.

To some extent, this is just an extension of Firefox's existing capabilities. We tested a MediaFire download, and found it tried to open a full-screen popup ad during the process, which the browser happily blocked for us. SkipScreen, however, went quite a bit beyond the call of duty. Not only did it start the download without any user intervention, but as soon as the file started downloading, it replaced the MediaFire page with one of its own making that's largely an ad for SkipScreen itself, with a Google-supplied text ad thrown in as well.

It's no surprise that the people behind MediaFire are a bit annoyed by this, but they've gone after an unexpected target: Mozilla, which hosts a download link for SkipScreen as part of its collection of Firefox plugins. In a letter sent to Mozilla, the company accuses the SkipScreen developers of "hiding their contact information behind their hosting company," although it's not clear whether MediaFire attempted to use the available e-mail address for the developers. In any case, the letter demands that Mozilla cease "promotion, indexing, and distribution" of the plugin, claiming that it violates MediaFire's acceptable use policy and "steals costly bandwidth."

The SkipScreen developers, however, have gotten the Electronic Frontier Foundation to take up their case. In a letter that has also been sent to Mozilla, the EFF calls MediaFire's claim's "baseless," arguing, "SkipScreen, like many other add-ons, simply automates certain browser tasks in order to improve the user experience." The letter points out that only users who set up accounts agree to the company's acceptable use policy; downloaders just go straight through to the file. Furthermore, it notes, there's no real difference in total bandwidth use for downloads initiated with or without the plugin.

Mozilla has a pretty clear set of rules for its Firefox add-ons, but the only one that might apply in these circumstances is prohibition of the following: "Add-ons that clearly violate terms of service for websites, e.g., spam generators, flooding messages, denial of service attacks, extreme server load generators, etc." It would appear that MediaFire wrote its complaint with this in mind, given its emphasis on acceptable use violations.

In any case, the whole idea of attempting to get SkipScreen off of Mozilla's plugin site may end up backfiring. SkipScreen can be installed regardless of where it's downloaded from, and an extended exchange of lawyer-generated, threatening letters will do little more than raise the software's profile.

Not only did it start the download without any user intervention, but as soon as the file started downloading, it replaced the MediaFire page with one of its own making that's largely an ad for SkipScreen itself, with a Google-supplied text ad thrown in as well.

This seems pretty shady, it looks like there actually are reasonable grounds for Mozilla to pull the link to this.

I anticipate this is something we're going to see more of in the future.

With Web 2.0 and cloud computing, service integration is becoming more and more common. The problem is a lot of application integration doesn't expose you to the ads the fund the service in the background, which is ultimately a losing strategy.

Facebook isn't getting any ad impressions when you use your IM client. Nor is Twitter getting any revenue when you post and read twits entirely from your handheld.

All that this will result in is file sharing sites like this shutting down due to lack of revenue. They'll be swollowed up by services from larger companies that can both afford the bandwidth and taking losses for awhile, and bigger law firms on retainer who can take care of bypasses like this with prejudice.

In the end, the plug-in will just shift the marketplace away from smaller companies. Anything you do that reduces or removes the profit from a service will result in that service going away. No one provides bandwidth out of the goodness of their heart, after all...

Originally posted in the article:In any case, the whole idea of attempting to get SkipScreen off of Mozilla's plugin site may end up backfiring. SkipScreen can be installed regardless of where it's downloaded from, and an extended exchange of lawyer-generated, threatening letters will do little more than raise the software's profile.

QFT. I didn't even know about this add-on until I read this article, an article which would not have been written were it not for the "exchange of lawyer-generated, threatening letters"...

I wonder if it only works with MediaFire.. I'll have to go check it out

Yea they are stupid in the way they handled it and ultimately will just drive more users to it but they do have a point. They offer a free service and can only offer that server based on those ads and this completely blows past it. I am not huge on dealing with ads, especially those ones that pop up when you hover over a link in the damn article text(nothing will drive me away from a site quicker then that, nothing) but I do tolerate them when services are free. Every once in a while they are useful too.

Originally posted by Lemurs:All that this will result in is file sharing sites like this shutting down due to lack of revenue. They'll be swollowed up by services from larger companies that can both afford the bandwidth and taking losses for awhile, and bigger law firms on retainer who can take care of bypasses like this with prejudice.

In the end, the plug-in will just shift the marketplace away from smaller companies. Anything you do that reduces or removes the profit from a service will result in that service going away. No one provides bandwidth out of the goodness of their heart, after all...

Maybe these file sharing sites should come up with a revenue model that doesn't rely heavily on ads?

...SkipScreen only performs a task users perform in the normal course of activity, being, click past the ads. When the ads show up, I don't read them. Not a glance but to find the click-past link. They serve no purpose. I click past by habit. MediaFire is losing nothing on my account.

Originally posted by Lemurs:All that this will result in is file sharing sites like this shutting down due to lack of revenue. They'll be swollowed up by services from larger companies that can both afford the bandwidth and taking losses for awhile, and bigger law firms on retainer who can take care of bypasses like this with prejudice.

In the end, the plug-in will just shift the marketplace away from smaller companies. Anything you do that reduces or removes the profit from a service will result in that service going away. No one provides bandwidth out of the goodness of their heart, after all...

Lemurs, I just want to make sure you ALWAYS watch EVERY tv commercial. Those shows don't pay for themselves. So don't go make a sandwich, don't go to the bathroom, don't go fold some laundry...otherwise you are STEALING TV!!!1!1!

I'm not sure this is cool. Clever, yes. We dig the net all the time for shortcuts and tricks but the consequence (I was thinking "intent" at first) is to deprive the creator/host of its main revenue source. This is very much akin to to the P2P "sharing" conundrum in my mind.

I can see the need to make some profit, so I don't mind a nonintrusive ad or two, but these companies think they see a cash cow and find every opportunity to stick these ads in our face.

What it'll boil down too in the end, is who needs who more. I use ClickToFlash and Safari Cookies to get a handle on some of the abuse. If a site uses moderation with ads, I do my best to watch them, otherwise I'll always find a way to click through.

Lemurs, I just want to make sure you ALWAYS watch EVERY tv commercial. Those shows don't pay for themselves. So don't go make a sandwich, don't go to the bathroom, don't go fold some laundry...otherwise you are STEALING TV!!!1!1!

If you wanted to make a valid analogy why don't you bring up actual devices that automate the commercial skipping process. Automating the process of skipping ads is a completely different thing than casually missing ads. By your lofty standards forgetting to pay a bill is on the same level as the mass defrauding of a company.

Originally posted by ljocampo:I can see the need to make some profit, so I don't mind a nonintrusive ad or two, but these companies think they see a cash cow and fine every opportunity to stick these ads in our face.

What it'll boil down too in the end, is who needs who more. I use ClickToFlash and Safari Cookies to get a handle on some of the abuse. If a site uses moderation with ads, I do my best to watch them, otherwise I'll always find a way to click through.

You realize the bandwidth costs of these companies is exponentially higher than those of a typical site and by extension the amount of ads needed to support the site is also higher.

You make it seem as if their costs are no greater than those of the random blogger therefore their heavy use of ads is a greedy cash grab.

Why doesn't it ever occur to these greedy litigous types that ANYONE who would consider using a tool like SkipScreen is NOT a receptive audience for their annoying advertising anyway? Even if they succeed via legal hook and crook to prevent use of such tools, they will never get a single click-though from these people. They're beating an already decomposed horse.

Originally posted by geoken:If you wanted to make a valid analogy why don't you bring up actual devices that automate the commercial skipping process. Automating the process of skipping ads is a completely different thing than casually missing ads. By your lofty standards forgetting to pay a bill is on the same level as the mass defrauding of a company.

Geoken, I just want to make sure you NEVER use your DVR or NEVER used your VCR to skip or fast-forward through any recorded TV show...otherwise you STOLE TV!!!1!1!

I think all this "you have to allow the ads to allow revenue for the hoster" is nonsense. Ads are useless if the audience does not want them. There's nothing lost here. And it would be interesting to know how many users of this service actually use the extension. I bet it's a really small minority. This is at least the case with AdBlock: Here and elsewhere everyone seems to use it, but "normal" users don't, so the lost ads just vanish in the noise. And, as I said: Trying to force users to stare at the ads is useless. If you want to make money with ads focus on the users who like them or at least don't care and not on those who hate them. Everything else is just silly, you'll win exactly nothing.

1) MediaFire has no wait times, download limits, or any other delays. Downloads are already instantly available. The discussion about skipping these non-existant limits is moot.

2) What Skipscreen does is clicks the a link and then shows you a full page advertisement for SkipScreen including their own ad. Its pretty misleading to users who think it does something magical for them with MediaFire when in reality it does very little but generate ad revenue for SkipScreen.

I welcome anything that makes my life easier (let's face it, in the end it's all about "me", and I'm referring to the end user). Hence, I've been using SS since the beginning. They keep improving and some big companies are adapting (change how they handle the timer, captcha, etc). MF will just have to adjust. As an end user, I don't give a fart about their wants. I hate all adds (no, I don't watch TV, so don't give me ur commercials excuse).

Having a choice is what technology has allowed us. Just because the wheel may have been square before doesn't mean that we should resist the change toward a wheel that rides better, the circular one.

This is what you are seeing with the music/movie industry and P2P. People KNOW that technology lets them get things NOW, so why not adapt to the wants of the end user and modify ur outdated strategy.

Like in evolution, some companies will HAVE to go extinct. These are usually the ones that resist the huge forces of nature (or in this case the wants of the users). If ur current model allows for such adaptations as SS, then modify, change, adapt. If you can't afford it, tough luck. It was just ur time to die.

Mediafire is one of the best file hosting sites. Its free no download limits or speed limits or wait limits like rapidshare, megaupload, megashare, depositfiles, hotfiles, etc. It takes you to the site, you press download, and ad pops up and you download. I had skipscreen and uninstalled it because I found it annoying on some sites.

Originally posted by geoken:If you wanted to make a valid analogy why don't you bring up actual devices that automate the commercial skipping process. Automating the process of skipping ads is a completely different thing than casually missing ads. By your lofty standards forgetting to pay a bill is on the same level as the mass defrauding of a company.

Geoken, I just want to make sure you NEVER use your DVR or NEVER used your VCR to skip or fast-forward through any recorded TV show...otherwise you STOLE TV!!!1!1!

I don't own either.

Even if I had a DVR, it, and by extension it's use, is obviously within the TOS since the cable provider is giving it to me.

Originally posted by dbosso:The failure of your business model is not my problem. Really.

And the loss of these kinds of services to the community at large is who's problem then? It's nice to think of ourselves now and then, but once in awhile one has to look at the big picture and say, "I have responsibilities".

Originally posted by dbosso:The failure of your business model is not my problem. Really.

And the loss of these kinds of services to the community at large is who's problem then? It's nice to think of ourselves now and then, but once in awhile one has to look at the big picture and say, "I have responsibilities".

Originally posted by ljocampo:I can see the need to make some profit, so I don't mind a nonintrusive ad or two, but these companies think they see a cash cow and fine every opportunity to stick these ads in our face.

What it'll boil down too in the end, is who needs who more. I use ClickToFlash and Safari Cookies to get a handle on some of the abuse. If a site uses moderation with ads, I do my best to watch them, otherwise I'll always find a way to click through.

You realize the bandwidth costs of these companies is exponentially higher than those of a typical site and by extension the amount of ads needed to support the site is also higher.

You make it seem as if their costs are no greater than those of the random blogger therefore their heavy use of ads is a greedy cash grab.

It is a cash grab! The Internet with it's bandwidth usage had been around for quite a few years WITHOUT these abundant ads. But that was before the commercialization of the Internet. I stand by what I said. Google's ad sense is everywhere and most DO NOT opposed these ads, including me. I do oppose Flash-based ads that take up 25% of a web page and keep flashing (pun intended) like the HTML blink command of old. Nor do I care for advertising that I'm force to watch at sites I actually paid to use.